Table 3. Reports of Revision THA with Dual Mobility Design (I).
| Study (year) | Implant (manufacturer) | No. of hip | Mean follow-up (mo) | Mean age (yr) | Dislocation rate (%) | Survival rate (%) | IPD (%) | Acetabular loosening (%) | HHS (preope ration) | HHS at last follow-up |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guyen et al. (2009)53) | Saturne (Amplitude) | 54 | 47 | 66.5 | 1.9 | 90.8 | 3.7 | 0 | 68.8 | 83.7 |
| Philippot et al. (2009)11) | Novae (Serf) | 163 | 60 | 68.7 | 3.7 | 96.1 | 0 | 1.2 | - | - |
| Massin and Besnier (2010)54) | Collégia (Wright) | 23 | 54 | 68 | 8.6 | 95.7 | 0 | 4.3 | - | - |
| Leiber-Wackenheim et al. (2011)36) | Novae-1/Novae-E (Serf) | 59 | 96 | 68 | 1.7 | 98 | 0 | 0 | - | 86.7 |
| Schneider et al. (2011)55) | Novae (Serf) | 96 | 42 | 69.9 | 10.4 | 95.6 | 0 | 1 | - | - |
| Pattyn and Audenaert (2012)56) | Apogée (Biotechni) | 37 | 16 | 70.4 | 5.4 | 97.3 | 0 | 0 | 39.9 | - |
| Mertl et al. (2012)57) | - | 180 | 43 | 67.4 | 4.8 | 92.6 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 76.9 | 83.9 |
| Civinini et al. (2012)58) | Avantage (Biomet) | 33 | 36 | 69 | 0 | 97 | 0 | 0 | 48 | 86 |
| Hailer et al. (2012)43) | Avantage (Biomet) | 228 | 24 | 75 | 2 | 93 | - | 2 | - | - |
| Saragaglia et al. (2013)59) | Mixed | 29 | 46 | 75.6 | 3.4 | 100 | - | 0 | - | - |
| Mukka et al. (2013)60) | Avantage (Biomet) | 34 | 18 | 75.7 | 6 | - | - | - | - | 67 |
| Prudhon et al. (2014)61) | Ades (Dedienne), Integra (Lépine) | 79 | 24 | 75.5 | 1.3 | 97.3 | - | 2.7 | - | - |
| Jakobsen et al. (2014)62) | Saturne (Amplitude) | 56 | 44 | 72 | 1.8 | 94.7 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 76 | 87 |
| van Heumen et al. (2015)28) | Avantage (Biomet) | 50 | 29 | 67 | 0 | 93 | - | 2 | - | - |
| Snir et al. (2015)63) | ADM/MDM (Stryker), AA E1 (Biomet) | 18 | 17 | 51 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 28 | 66 |
THA: total hip arthroplasty, IPD: intra-prosthetic dislocation, HHS: Harris hip score.